how come the Dalai lama...

...is NOT a vegetarian? he dosent live in tibet. (where it is difficult to be a vegetarian) today, in darhamsala, where he lives, it IS possible to be a vegetarian, as i have been there.
but buddhism says that You are NOT allowed to kill.
where is the logic?

 

Why does this really matter? How does scrutinizing another's life style help you in any way? What if he has a medical issue that requires him to eat meat. Perhaps he may eat what the public offers him, as the Buddha did (and by the way, the Buddha was not a vegetarian). If the Dalai Lama chooses to eat meat, that is his decision, his karma. It is unbecoming to point out perceived flaws in others; take care to mind your own flaws. As a Tibetan saying goes, Don't point out the flea in another's hair while ignoring the yak sitting on your nose.

Peace and love

 

Isn't that exactly what this is ... pointing out perceived flaws?

HTML:

 

It may be very useful to scrutinize the lives of others. It might make you see what you don't want to become yourself.

It is also a contradiction in terms as Darrell points out.

 

Well, afterall, he is quite a big leader and influence and his message gets a long way. I just wonder WHY doesnt he live the way the religion says? there other buddhists out there being total vegetarians.... so...?

 

Buddhism is a very dynamic religion. Two different people can have radically different understanding of Buddhism.

You seem to come to the conclusion that Buddhism preaches vegetarianism. I personally do not believe so, and the good ol' Dali Lama might not believe so either.

 

why are we always so technical, we learn the art of persuation, argumentation, but we forget the TRUE message, i mean, one of the most important thing in buddhism, is NOT TO KILL. Either you do it, directly or inderectly, (accepting to eat meat offered to you), or you dont' kill, and it IS possible to be a vegetarian. There are no BUT this or that.
or are you trying to hide the truth, ARE YOU TRYING TO CHEAT?

 

Another important thing is not to forget that EVERYONE is not a Buddhist, nor do they practice the teachings of a Buddha in the sense of the one commonly recognized as the Buddha of this era.

Everyone lives according to the actions they have performed, are performing and will perform. Not everyone is aware that their actions have a consequence outside of their own stomaches and pockets. Until they become aware of these consequences, they will continue to kill, and continue to eat and sell what they kill.

To the practitioners of the Buddha's teachings, it is okay to eat meat, it is not okay to kill and then eat what one kills. Nor is it okay to condone killing. However, it is okay to eat what has been killed so long as the one eating has not killed it, nor has had the meat they are eating at the time been killed for them, nor have the knowledge that the animal they were consuming was killed for them ... for them.

Until all beings practice the teachings of the Buddha, there will be hunters, there will be those who kill and do harm to other living beings.

HTML:

 

The teachings of Buddha does not say "You are NOT allowed to kill". The precepts of Buddhism is to "Refrain from taking the life (breath) of another living being". Refrain means to abstain from the impulse to do something. Abstain means to hold oneself back voluntarily.

You CAN do all the things the Precepts indicate one to refrain oneself from and still practice Buddhism. The precepts are a means to practice morality for an intended result ... meditative concentration. And meditative concentration is a means toward wisdom.

The result of NOT refraining from taking the life of another being, or taking what has not been given, or engaging in incorrect speech, or engaging in inappropriate sensual pleasure, or taking intoxicants is the LACK of meditative concentration. The LACK of meditative concentration is a LACK of wisdom.

HTML:

 

No, I wasn't criticizing the OP. Why are you attacking me for something I did not do? This is ridiculous. Are you not doing the same thing you accuse me of? I was just trying to say that one should think about your own flaws before criticizing another. I was not trying to put the OP down in any way. How is anyone supposed to say "hey, maybe you shouldn't do this" w/o being attacked for supposedly pointing out flaws?

Peace and love

 

No one is attacking anyone, HC. Not sure why you perceived as such.

Attack: 1) To set upon with violent force. 2) To critize strongly or in a hostile manner. 3) To begin to affect harmfully.

It's easy to criticize things that don't easly fit within one scope of perception. What one see's as a problem in others, the one being perceived as being a problem doesn't perceive it that way at all. It's the one doing the critizing that is having a problem ... a problem not liking what it is one is perceiving in others. This is called "ill-will" ... not liking.

One of the most common ways of relaying ones displeasure in their perception of what others are doing is to start the thought/conversation with "You know what your problem is ..." when it's not the other person with the problem, it's the one perceiving the problem because it is not what the one perceiving would say or do.

I know ... I know ... you didn't say that, hippie_chick ... I'm just making a statement that doesn't relate to you as being singled out ... but to EVERYBODY ... !!!

It's our individual perceptions that are the problems. We are the problems. Not them. It is this self-identification that is the problem.

What laeyne asked was, in her own perception, a perfectly legit question. And your first answer (Why does this really matter) was a perfect spot-on answer.

By saying it was unbecoming to point out flaws in others was pointing out the flaws of the one you said was being unbecoming. So you were saying the other person was flawed, and by the standards or scope of your perception they were unbecoming. I was just pointing this out. Not setting on you with violent force, or critize you strongly or in a hostile manner. You may have perceived it this way. In which case, that too is "ill-will" because in all appearances of the situation it seems you took displeasure in my response.

You shouldn't have. Neither should we be judging others based on what we would say or do. Although ... we do it anyway. My self included. But at least I am aware of this.

HTML:

 

Dalai lama does not live his own life as he is largely controlled by his office. He doesn't choose food based on whimsy and desire but based on what he needs. He was told to eat chicken and it was prepared for him by his physicians. Otherwise he is mostly vegetarian. A recent speech he gave discusses how he eats very little meat now.

 

HTML:

 he dosent live in tibet.

He is not welcome in Tibet, the Chineese dont want him around to
remind people that Tibet is administered by the Chineese military.

 

So you are saying that I did not correctly perceive your post, that I saw an attack when there wasn't one. Is there any chance that perhaps you perceived what I said as pointing out flaws when my intention was a blank statement? Just as you said above that you were not referring directly to me, perhaps I wasn't telling the OP that she had a flaw.

Peace and love

 

Probably the same reason the pope gets to molest the hottest altarboys, because as leader of a faith comes special privileges.

 

it's a special clan mixed the buddhism with the native religion, although the monks follow the teaching, they also obey to their customs.

Meat and milk are the basic diet.

 

Actually, that is a point of contention, there is no proof either way.
The translation of his final meal could just as easily be "truffles" as it could be "pork".

But this is academic, I see little reason to put my food in the Buddha's mouth, or the Dalai Lama's for that matter.

I'm a vegetarian because I think it is uncondusive to my practice.
If he eats meat, I presume the Dalai Lama disagrees.

We each do the best we can

 

RD: Your assistant says you are half vegetarian. How can one be “half vegetarian?”

Dalai Lama: [Laughs.] In the early 1960s, I became a vegetarian, and for almost two years I remained a strict vegetarian. But then I developed hepatitis, and I returned to my previous diet; for a while it would be vegetarian one day, nonvegetarian the next.

My kitchen is now totally vegetarian. But that doesn’t mean I am completely vegetarian, for when I visit places, occasionally I take nonvegetarian…that seems to help reduce the size of my stomach.
http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2004/05/dalai_lama.html

 

I read in one of his books "Imagine all the people" (wich was really a book by this guy interviewing him) that he gets sick if he goes completely with out meat, but he does an every-other day thing. Meat, no meat, meat, no meat... that way he's a vegitarian for 6 months of the year.

 

Well, Buddhism does teach reverance for all life. One could gather from that that the religion does preach vegetarianism in a way.